Contract Airline Services


"We are the protagonists of our stories called life, and there is no limit to how high we can fly."


Type rated on A330, B747-400, B747, B757, B767, B737, B727. International Airline Pilot / Author / Speaker. Dedicated to giving the gift of wings to anyone following their dreams. Supporting Aviation Safety through training, writing, and inspiration.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Boeing 797: Fact or Fiction


BOEING 797
It can comfortably fly 10,000 Miles
at Mach 0.88 or 654 mph
with 1000 passengers on board!


Rumor has it...

"The  BOEING  797....

Boeing is preparing this 1000 passenger Jet Liner that could reshape the Air Travel Industry. Its radical "Blended Wing & Fuselage" design has been developed by Boeing in cooperation with NASA Langley Research Centre. The mammoth aircraft will have a wing span of 265 feet compared to 211 feet of its 747, and its been designed to fit within the newly created Air Terminals for the 555 seat Airbus A380, which is 262 feet wide.

 

The new 797 is Boeing's direct response to the Airbus A380, which has racked up orders for 159 already. Boeing decided to kill its 747X Stretched Super Jumbo in 2003 after little interest was shown for it by Airline Companies, but continued to develop its "Ultimate Airbus Crusher", the 797 at its Phantom Works Research Facility in Long Beach, California.

The Airbus A380 had been in the works since 1999 and has accumulated $13 Billion in development costs, which gives Boeing a huge advantage. More so because Airbus is thus committed to the older style tubular structure for their aircraft for decades to come.


There are several big advantages in the "Blended Wing & Fuselage" design, the most important being the ‘Lift to Drag’ ratio which is expected to increase by an amazing 50%, resulting in an overall weight reduction of the aircraft by 25%, making it an estimated 33% more fuel efficient than the A380, and thus making the Airbus's $13 Billion Dollar investment look pretty shaky.

 


"High Airframe Rigidity" is another key factor in the "Blended Wing & Fuselage" technology. It reduces turbulence and creates less stress on the airframe which adds to fuel efficiency, giving the 797 a tremendous 10,000 Mile range with 1,000 passengers on board cruising comfortably at Mach 0.88 or 654 MPH, which gives it another advantage over the tube-and-wing designed A380's 570 MPH.


The exact date  for introduction of the 797 is as yet unclear, but the battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes war for future civilian aircraft supremacy."

What do you think? Is it possible? Could this be the future? Would you fly on this plane if it came to being?

Enjoy the Journey!

XOX Karlene

71 comments:

  1. Hi, Karlene!

    Those pictures have been around. They're p'shopped views of the X-48 unmanned technology demonstrator...which is back in the news, having resumed flight tests. The wiki' article on the X-48 is here.

    Boeing apparently did toy with the idea of a blended wing airliner and went so far as to construct a cabin mockup...which passengers hated. Nobody wanted to sit forty feet away from the nearest window. So they dropped it (except as a possible military tanker/cargo configuration).

    Fun to think about, tho'.

    Best,

    Frank

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow... that's interesting. I did not know there actually had been a test. First glance I thought there performance would be an issue and this had to be a joke.

      And then the issue about the seats? The comment below was written about the seats prior to yours posting.

      Thank you for the comment and the great article too!

      Delete
    2. April 2013 flight tests of the X48C were completed. This is an ongoing project.

      Delete
    3. it looks pretty ugly

      Delete
    4. Most blended wing designs are unlikely to be accepted into commercial aviation, because I can guarantee you they can't evacuate a full BWB aircraft in under 90 seconds.

      Delete
    5. looks gorgeous but also like a stingray

      Delete
    6. There are a number of reasons why this aircraft cannot and does not exist today:
      1) Too much drag. The leading edge of the wings and blended fuselage design are aerodynamically unfriendly. Fuel consumption would be horrendous.
      2) The previous points made about passenger comfort and distance to windows. This would also be of concern as far as to say as they are just as far away from the emergency exits. Not good and unrealistic.
      3) The amount of thrust needed to get such an aerodynamically inefficient design in such a large and heavy package would be tremendous. I doubt anything without afterburners in this day and age would manage such a task.
      4) We still have not managed to pressurise an aircraft cabin that is any shape other than cylindrical. So, this 'open-plan' cabin design is currently impossible in a pressurised environment. At least today.
      5) Airports would have to be completely redesigned to take this sized and shaped aircraft. Airbridges would currently not have the reach or articulation to mate with the doors (blended fuselage/wing design). Especially as the blended delta wing design travels the full length of the fuselage. How are you going to exit this thing in any reasonable time frame? I question the assumption that the 265 foot wingspan mentioned above is correct. I would suggest this aircraft would need a larger wingspan to get off the ground and stay off it.

      In conclusion - It looks pretty cool and the artist that designed it is extremely proficient in Photoshop.

      Delete
    7. Chris, this is interesting. And... I had not thought about the pressurization aspect. Fascinating. Yes... photo shop is amazing...fun to think of the futuristic side of aviation. Thank you so much for your comment!

      Delete
    8. ugly????? It's a damn huge plane that goes 10,000 miles with 1,000 passengers, you're ugly

      Delete
    9. Yes... ugly! Should be against the law to build an ugly plane. I'm thinking the 380 is pretty homely, too. :)

      Delete
  2. I don't want to fly IN this thing. It's all middle seats with no outside view! How will I know if the pilots are doing their thing properly? Oh, I get it, no pilots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't fly in this either. And the funny thing is, you are not alone on the seat issue.
      You know... it's kind of fun to imagine. Maybe a story will be made about this. Check out the article that Frank posted. Thanks for your comment.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I recognized the concept as something I've seen before. The B2 used the same idea, and is unstable. You can't build a stable flying wing, so certification would be a concern, and if the artificial flight stability system quits, you eject. I'd like to see THAT with 1,000 passengers....

      Delete
    3. an outside view? know if the pilots are not crashing the aircraft? trust me you'll feel it when the plane is dropping 1,000 feet per second and if you are that much of an idiot then you'll know once you're just a bunch of meat splattered all over the ground!!!!!!

      Delete
    4. I do not want to be splattered meat!!!

      Delete
  3. The concept looks really impressive, same thing with the figures (costs, fuel consumption, speed, etc.). However I wonder how accepted would be this aircraft in the industry. I mean, airports would have to be redesigned. Let's imagine eight or ten "797s" parked while boarding/unboarding passengers, airports facilities would have to be different than they're now.

    Now, if you ask me if I would fly on it, my answer is YES, I would (Jeez!, I love planes).

    Greetings :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Mario! Okay... they will for sure have a passenger. You know, all of us who say we never would...probably would.

      Yes... redesigning everything would be a huge impact. They actually had to do that, on a smaller scale, for the A380. Such an interesting and fun world we live.

      Keep loving planes! And thank you for your comment!

      Delete
    2. That's happened before, not just for the A380. I'm old enough to remember when the same concerns were expressed over the B747-100. Airports just got bigger.

      Delete
    3. Yes... so true. And then came the 380. How big will these airports eventually get? Hopefully they have room to grow. :)

      Delete
  4. I sure hope that when and if Boeing finally does build its 1,000 seater plane, it is more creative in the naming department.

    May be call it the Boeing 1000.

    And hopefully Airbus will still be around too ... you know, just for the sake of competition ... to keep the folks honest.

    Indeed, I look forward to a third major player in the civil aviation space - may be building 100 seater or 200 seater planes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, competition is good and essential. Keeps everyone honest and always doing their best. And honestly... your name is the best name. I like it.

      Thanks for your comment!

      Delete
  5. I think the big downside I see to this design is a severe lack of window seats! Maybe most people don't care but I hate getting stuck in the middle where I can't see outside even a bit...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. So true. Looks like they have a lot of aisles though. I'm wondering... how can you evacuate 1000 people in the required time? Could be a challenge.

      Delete
    2. use the viedo tv in front of you with the right cameras you would see more then you do now

      Delete
  6. The 797 will fit in the same space as the A-380, so no new redesigning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh... now there is a plus. So it will fit. Okay... there you have it. Maybe the runways weren't just expanded for the Airbus after all.

      Delete
  7. It is fiction now... I heard the same thing as the top comments are saying. But here is my idea: Airbus has a plan to make a completely new aircraft with no pilots and with a special transparent fuselage made out of special resin. So, let's make it bigger and transparent! :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh... and now we're back to the question... would we fly without pilots? We all say never, but who knows. You are at the beginning of the next generation... what an exciting place to be.

      Delete
    2. Flying without pilots would be unfair. Actually, pretty dangerous. Machines don't think, they do what they are programmed to do. Would they know what to do when the aircraft is stalling? Okay, a better question: would they know what to do what a well trained pilot knows what to do? That is the question. However, you are right, who knows! But unmanned airplanes will take many many years to be developed. Wow, what a subject! So complex, I can't find an answer! There's too many things to be considered! Fantastic question, Karlene!

      Delete
  8. Interesting to know that Boeing decided to kill the notion of an A380 style double deck to tail to compete with Airbus. The model above is awesome from the outside, however, I agree with the above comments: I would not want to be seated away from a window seat. I'd rather not fly to begin with if I can not see what is outside of the aircraft - especially if we declare an emergency. (Yes, I am a picky avgeek.) And yes, there better be pilots inside as the notion of planes flying themselves, well, let's just say, that idea doesn't fly with me to well... Cheers, -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of us Avgeeks are picky. I'm thinking I'd be very claustrophobic to be inside this plane. I need windows too! And Pilots. So demanding aren't we?

      Delete
  9. I love the background city scene in the first photo. It looks like it's out of the Jetsons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does look like the Jetsons. And before we know it...we'll all be living there.

      Delete
  10. Passengers on the centreline would be disadvantaged by seating that is so far away from windows, natural light. But, the advances of in flight entertainment systems can nearly clean this up. However, those at the windows would literally have to be aerobatic types, sustain the huge movements, inertia of a simple roll - movements that would make loads of people quite sick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay, I'm now thinking no sickness. No disadvantage. They should take all the windows out. They could fill the cabin with lizard lights. Great idea.

      Delete
    2. Lizard lights, lol. I think because you're seated so far away from the centre of the aircraft, the sensation is of a much larger movement when the aircraft makes a very slight movement, windows, of course wouldn't matter to those few seated near them in such a case. Would a 45 degree roll produce a stomach churning vertical movement in excess of 20 metres? They shouldn't take the windows out so much as looking into flying the aircraft in such a way as to minimise discomfort of those passengers. I think air sickness would be a much bigger problem than lack of windows in such an aircraft.

      Delete
    3. I'm thinking... it's just too big. Why would 1000 people ever want to go to the same place anyway? But... on another note. We shouldn't be rolling 45 degrees either. lol.

      Delete
  11. Never happen. It's too radical and both airline manufacturers and the airlines themselves are too conservative for this kind of radical re-design.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent point. Unless it made them money, then conservatism goes out the window. :)

      Delete
  12. I think fewer people care about windows than you may realise... The fact is, to the average passenger, once you're at cruising altitute, there isn't much to see anyway. Most folks are looking at the TV screens, not out the windows... That said, this cabin could feel like a cozy movie theatre, and if the screen was big enough, people would be fighting for those middle seats...

    Why be so resistant to change folks? That attitude gets us no where...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahhh... Change is a good thing. But put 1000 people on a plane for that length of time, add alcohol, fatigue, dehydration... windows or not, this is a recipe for disaster.
      But, if they found it feasible, and could make them money, I'm sure they would do it. Never say never.

      Delete
  13. How large an airplane can be is limied by the lift to weight ratio (which decreases with size). Even at 25% weight reduction, will the blended wing/fuselage airplane stay in the air with 1000 passengers?

    If so, this would be a mamoth accomplishment, and solving whatever problms with windows, fatigue, dehydration, and docking space are trivial by comparison. Surely such an airplane would offer a magnificent flying experience, and I for one would not hesitate to go...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it would be monumental. But even so they did the monumental... would people want to fly on it? That's the question. Kind of like flying without your pilots. Would you?
      Thanks for the great comment~

      Delete
  14. The Airlines are sure to want these especially for the amount of seats. Passengers usually dont get a choice - window seat or not. Hopefully we see something like this from Airbus because it seems alot more efficient than the current design.
    ---Also, in an emergency how are they going to get 1000 people out???---

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think they would get them out. But never say never. Planes like this are a non-revers dream. Thanks for your comment!

      Delete
  15. This plane is AWESOME!!! I think Boeing should make this plane float in water so no matter how many times it will make an emergency landing on the water, it won't sink.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes... then it can be a cruise ship too! :)

      Delete
  16. You need to be able to evacuate the entire aircraft within 90 seconds. With few windows (and doors) and 1000 passengers, it would be extremely tough to evacuate those in the middle-back of the plane.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes you do. They would have their work cut out for them for sure.

      Delete
  17. Passenger aircraft have changed very little in the past 50-70 years ... same basic fuselage, wings and engines (albeit advancements in avionics, radar and weather forecasting). Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines has shown different designs for high altitude flights, not high volume passenger loads such as the A380. If we think ahead for the next 100 years, we'll probably have developed point-to-point matter transport centers (or stepping discs) and then high passenger load aircraft become superfluous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an interesting comment. I'm thinking the 707 in 1962, is vastly different than the 787 of today. The only similarities is they have two wings, a fuselage, a tail, and fly.

      Delete
  18. Looks like an awesome design! The only drawback is the extremely-limited number of window seats for this design. Myself like most other flyers love having a window seat and being able to stare outside while the plane is in flight to see what's below. It's not ideal as a passenger jetliner design, but this would be superb for a future design for a cargo jetliner as there would be LOTS of room for a large number of cargo pallets (at least twice as much as an A380F) and cargo pallets don't need window seats either!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does! But I'm thinking that I want the aisle. Only because if we have to evacuate... I'm out of there. lol. You're right...excellent freighter for sure. Thanks for your comment!

      Delete
  19. Here's one for you ... food for thought: The 797 not as a BWB but as a replacement for the 737 series. I've played around on the sim with a design, looks all the world like the 787 but is the size of the 734/738. Weighs less than the 757 but in the 3,800 - 4,200 nm range. It keeps the standard 6-abreast single isle but the round design like the 787 means slightly wider seats in coach and of course the bigger windows. Would there be any takers for that? (Bag the 737MAX and go with the 787 shape/design/raked wing-thing.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am liking the way you think! Wider seats. More room. Bigger windows and looks like the 787. This is my plane!! And passengers would love it. Thanks for the great idea!

      Delete
  20. Very Very Good, thank you and thank you so much.
    we are from Iran, all Iranian like the Boing Co.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! I am from Seattle and I love Boeing too. :) Have a wonderful day!

      Delete
  21. Great design, I'm looking forward to pilot such an aircraft, but not until they add a rudder, I don't like it when the aircraft enters an unrecoverable spin or lands sideways

    Greetings Captain Amnar

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No kidding! And if it does enter an urecoverable spin, I will have to write about it. Did you see my new book is out? :) http://tinyurl.com/mjjkdon

      Delete
    2. I am interested in Making A 3D model of this, in 3DS MAX software. can I have more details about this flight

      Delete
    3. I would love to tell you more, but this is all I know. Google...it's your best friend!

      Delete
    4. Any more close view photos ? or what is written on the body ?

      Delete
    5. This is it. Go to the internet. lol

      Delete
    6. http://www.turbosquid.com/Search/Artists/Real-One?referral=Real-One
      Use this link to see 3D models of 787 dreamliners
      my screen name is Real One.

      Delete
  22. I’m frequent transatlantic flyer so I know what it means to seat for about 8 hours in economy class seat not to mention those on transpacific flights. Give people comfortable and spacious seats for the same price and nobody will complain that plane is ugly or they have no window view or anything else. Just have guts and do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not thinking this would be about giving economy passengers comfort. I'm thinking it would be to pack more people in.

      Delete
  23. Boeing's rejection of the 797 due to a lack of passenger windows must be false. Finnair provides fantastic inflight seat video viewing for passengers to see more than one could through a single window. Great larger seating and food t reasonable prices will keep all passengers happy. FAA certification, emergency and flight capabilities are the true issues- at present. Profits are the driving force, not service.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for your comment! If your comment doesn't appear immediately, it will after I land. Enjoy the journey!